Why do people say "Israel did 9-11"? (Page 4): Published on Apr 22, 2016. "Pieczenik says the Israelis, Saudis and neocons were behind the 9-11 attacks. Given evidence of Mossad’s...

whole2th

Published on Apr 22, 2016. "Pieczenik says the Israelis, Saudis and neocons were behind the 9-11 attacks. Given evidence of Mossad’s checkered past and involvement with the attack of the USS Liberty on Jun. 8, 1967, killing 34 American soldiers, Pieczenik's comments won’t be received as a big surprise to many Americans.
I want Netanyahu to “begin telling the truth, that the involvement of Israel was, in 9/11” says Pieczenik. “Over 134 Mossad operatives were picked up on 9/11. The FBI picked them up and debriefed them. They were clearly involved with the Pakistani ISI and Saudi Arabian intelligence” on 9/11."

http://911JusticeCampaign.org Where are the honest prosecutors, judges and sheriffs?

Carol Kelly

whole2th wrote:

How many? Hopefully, enough.

Where are your allegiances in regard to Israel?

How did muslims rig Building 7 and the Twin Towers with explosives? This "nonsense" continues to plague the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc&spfreload=10

It's not plaguing the world, just a few nuts for brains!

whole2th

Carol Kelly wrote:

It's not plaguing the world, just a few nuts for brains!

Netiquette and the new forum rules would place upon you, Carol Kelly, the burden of proving "nuts for brains". Otherwise, just ridicule shows much more about you than it does about me.

Meanwhile, I'll post more evidence indicating that people are catching on:

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/israeli-connections-to-911/mossad-truck-bombs/

Carol Kelly

whole2th wrote:

Netiquette and the new forum rules would place upon you, Carol Kelly, the burden of proving "nuts for brains". Otherwise, just ridicule shows much more about you than it does about me.

Meanwhile, I'll post more evidence indicating that people are catching on:

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/israeli-connections-to-911/mossad-truck-bombs/

Maybe they just had forged Israeli passports. Muslims are very good at that so I've read.

Liberty Tree

whole2th wrote:

Netiquette and the new forum rules would place upon you, Carol Kelly, the burden of proving "nuts for brains". Otherwise, just ridicule shows much more about you than it does about me.

Meanwhile, I'll post more evidence indicating that people are catching on:

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/israeli-connections-to-911/mossad-truck-bombs/

When you come up with proof from a legitimate source let us know. Until then as long as you try to shift blame from the Muslim perpetrators to Israel you will be considered pro-Muslim. Again, you are persuading no one. I know you believe that every news source in America is controlled by Jews so that is why none of this is know, but that is just another one of your fantasies.

whole2th

Carol Kelly wrote:

Maybe they just had forged Israeli passports. Muslims are very good at that so I've read.

It is fascinating that muslims are blamed for proven crimes committed by Israelis--such as forged passports:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-26/mossad-factory-churned-out-fake-australian/343612

http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-australia-already-warned-israel-against-faking-passports-1.266265

http://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-responsible-for-faking-aussie-passports-diplomat-expelled-smith-20100524-w5a3.html

Maybe you are blinded by your loyalties to Judaism and Israel, Carol Kelly.

whole2th

Liberty Tree wrote:

When you come up with proof from a legitimate source let us know. Until then as long as you try to shift blame from the Muslim perpetrators to Israel you will be considered pro-Muslim. Again, you are persuading no one. I know you believe that every news source in America is controlled by Jews so that is why none of this is know, but that is just another one of your fantasies.

So are the mainstream media news outlets "legitimate sources"?

Liberty Tree

whole2th wrote:

So are the mainstream media news outlets "legitimate sources"?

Though not perfect they are more than a conspiracy nut job.

whole2th

Liberty Tree wrote:

Though not perfect they are more than a conspiracy nut job.

Do the mass media sources pass your smell test as "legitimate sources". And, what if these reports point to Israeli involvement in 9-11? Does that automatically make the report "illegitimate"?

Do you define "legitimate" as "favoring Israel"?

Liberty Tree

whole2th wrote:

Do the mass media sources pass your smell test as "legitimate sources". And, what if these reports point to Israeli involvement in 9-11? Does that automatically make the report "illegitimate"?

Do you define "legitimate" as "favoring Israel"?

You define legitimate as not favoring Israel and protecting Muslims.

whole2th

Liberty Tree wrote:

You define legitimate as not favoring Israel and protecting Muslims.

No, qualifying a source as "legitimate" is your argument, not mine. You rejected ALL REFERENCES because they did not meet your "legitimate" standard.

Then, you flip it back on me and continue to evade the question about whether mass media meet your standards for legitimacy.

That is just plain slimy.

Liberty Tree

whole2th wrote:

No, qualifying a source as "legitimate" is your argument, not mine. You rejected ALL REFERENCES because they did not meet your "legitimate" standard.

Then, you flip it back on me and continue to evade the question about whether mass media meet your standards for legitimacy.

That is just plain slimy.

I said the national media was not perfect but better than the source you use. What is unclear about that? You are the one who only uses certain off the track sources because they agree with you. You are the one who is slimy in your selection of what you want to call legitimate so do not try the act of transference on me.

whole2th

Liberty Tree wrote:

I said the national media was not perfect but better than the source you use. What is unclear about that? You are the one who only uses certain off the track sources because they agree with you. You are the one who is slimy in your selection of what you want to call legitimate so do not try the act of transference on me.

The source I used referenced quite a number of national media broadcasts/reports. And you made a sweeping rejection of all the sources with a claim that they are "not legitimate".

So if national media is better than the source which referenced the national media, where does that put your argument?

Liberty Tree

whole2th wrote:

The source I used referenced quite a number of national media broadcasts/reports. And you made a sweeping rejection of all the sources with a claim that they are "not legitimate".

So if national media is better than the source which referenced the national media, where does that put your argument?

It puts it right where it needs to be. A legitimate source quotes all information not just what suits its purpose. It quotes data pro and con. By carefully choosing what information I use I can prove almost any point, but this all falls on deaf ears because you are hopelessly biased.

whole2th

Liberty Tree wrote:

It puts it right where it needs to be. A legitimate source quotes all information not just what suits its purpose. It quotes data pro and con. By carefully choosing what information I use I can prove almost any point, but this all falls on deaf ears because you are hopelessly biased.

By "carefully choosing what information [you] use" you are doing what you accuse me of doing--being hopelessly biased. My experience with zionists is that they also have "deaf ears" to any hint of Israeli criminality.